Commentary: Red Hen lays an egg on this one

Jay Jamison

Published
3:36 am CDT, Friday, June 29, 2018

Image
1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Commentary: Red Hen lays an egg on this one

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

President Trump’s press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, because some of the restaurant staff objected to serving her and her family.

She wasn’t causing a ruckus, she wasn’t disturbing the customers — she was just there.

Her mere presence was the alleged cause for the staff of the restaurant to demand their manager ask Sanders and her family to leave, which they did.

Maryland U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings, a virulent, liberal Democratic critic of President Trump, said on air that the restaurant should have served Sanders and her family. I was surprised by Cummings’ admonition of the restaurant management, given that he usually blames Trump for just about everything.

Did he sense a possible political danger arising from the actions of the restaurant staff?

When I first read about this incident and then about Cummings’ comments, I thought about the difference between denial of service in a public accommodation and the recent Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Presumably, Sanders and her family were not asking for the restaurant staff to make some special presentation praising Donald Trump or any of his policies. My guess is Sanders’ family was going to order off the menu like any other customer. It’s that distinction that makes this a refusal of service in a public accommodation.

Sanders and her family were being denied service, not for some act or omission in the restaurant. Her occupation as press secretary to a specific president is the sole justification offered for the request that she leave. Had Sanders requested a unique creation from the kitchen, a cake for example, glorifying Trump and then been refused, the case would be the same as that of the baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

She made no such request.

If this refusal of service is justified in some people’s minds, would a similar refusal to a future Democratic press secretary — one deemed offensive to restaurant staff — be justified?

Imagine the uproar if a restaurant had refused service to President Obama’s press secretary on the same grounds offered in this case.

Being offended by the mere presence of a specific person and thus refusing service is not in itself an excusing circumstance. If a criminal defense attorney who just gained an acquittal for a person widely perceived as a murderer is refused service at a restaurant because of his occupation, the case would be the same.

Would a restaurant manager be justified if he spotted porn star Stormy Daniels at a table and asked her to leave?

Each of these examples are about people in lawful occupations, whether you like their occupations or not.

My point is not to claim the management of the restaurant violated any law, but just because an act is lawful doesn’t mean that it’s right (see the Fugitive Slave Act and the “separate but equal” doctrine).

Which brings me back to Rep. Cummings.

I suspect Cummings may be sensitive to similar stories of refusals of service in public accommodations — say at Democratic lunch counters in the Deep South in the 1950s.